ULP Charge No. 75-95, Laborers’ Local No. 254. Affiliated with the Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Complainant, vs. State of Montana, Department of Administration, General Services Division, Defendant. Recommended Order issued January 16, 1996 by Hearing Officer Stan Gerke. Attorneys: Karl Englund for Complainant; Vivian Hammill for Defendant. Threat, Strike [09.12, 09.36, 11.21, 15.31, 21.5, 21.8, 43.120, 62.2, 62.31, 62.36, 62.52, 71.31, 72.131, 72.3521] Supervisor did not threaten employees in violation of 39-31-401 (1), (3) & (5) after strike vote in making comments about privatization of state mail service and the need for a bullet-proof vest. He made a prediction of privatization protected by Gissel Packing, 395 US 575, [71 LRRM 2481] (1969) and the bullet-proof vest comment was made in context of joking.

ULP Charge Nos. 26-98 & 27-98, Amalgamated Transit Union No. 381, AFL-CIO, Complainant/Defendant, vs. Board of Trustees, Butte School District No. 1 and Jack McCormick, Defendants/Complainants. Recommended Order issued April 20, 1999 by Hearing Officer James Keil. Attorneys: Matthew Thiel for union; Patrick Sullivan for district. Charges against union: Regressive Bargaining [09.32, 09.33, 11.51, 15.15, 41.33, 43.11, 73.435, 73.473] Union did not agree to 1% raise, therefore, it did not bargain regressively. District failed to meet burden of proof. Additionally, union eventually withdrew regressive features of proposals making charge de minimus. Strike [21.8, 43.11, 53.21, 53.71, 62.2, 62.31, 62.36, 62.61, 83.231] Union did not violate Act by going on strike before issuance of fact finder’s report. Nothing about fact finding procedure precludes union from striking nor makes strike illegal. School district stopped strike anyway with TRO issued by district court. Direct Dealing, Bypassing Bargaining Agent [09.13, 09.32, 73.2, 73.3, 73.440] Union did not attempt to unlawfully bypass school district’s bargaining agent, its personnel director, when it called certain school board members at home. Union members making calls did not attempt to bargain with board members. Charges against school district: Misrepresentation in Bargaining [09.32, 09.33, 11.51, 43.11, 72.535] District made no misrepresentations about raises other bargaining units within district received nor about comparability of union members’ pay amounts with other school districts in Montana, thus no bad faith bargaining occurred. Fact finding, Failure to Make Offer [11.51, 53.21, 53.513, 72.521] School district did not violate Act by declining to respond to union’s last offer made immediately prior to fact finding hearing. Union failed to establish any obligation on part of district to make one more offer before fact finding, and failed to establish how it is an unfair labor practice. Failure to Make Offer [11.51, 43.113, 72.532] Although district’s failure to make counter offer triggered strike, it had no obligation to respond to technically regressive offer. No violation occurred. Threats, Retaliation [09.12, 11.51, 15.15, 43.54, 43.95, 72.13, 72.3521] While district did make comments about subcontracting union’s work, they were not made in context of threats. Consideration of alternatives, such as contracting out, are normal business decisions. District did not attempt to interfere with union’s right to engage in concerted activity.

ULP Charge No. 22-2000, Montana District Council of Laborers, Local No. 1334-2, Laborers International Union of America, Complainant, vs. City-County of Butte-Silver Bow, Defendant. Recommended Order issued February 23, 2001 by Hearing Officer Michael Furlong. Attorneys: Karl Englund for Complainant; Don Robinson for Defendant. Retaliation, Union Activities [11.22, 11.23, 15.6, 21.3, 43.352, 43.98, 72.311, 72.324, 72.331, 72.353] City-county did not violate 39-31-401 (3) when it transferred union steward from afternoon to day shift. Supervisor made stray remark about lack of surprise at steward’s statement that he intended to file grievance over transfer, but it was insufficient to establish transfer as retaliation for steward’s union activities.

UNIT CLARIFICATION CASES: UC No. 5-93, Cascade County, Great Falls, Montana, Petitioner, vs. Montana Public Employees Association, Respondent. Recommended Order issued July 23, 1993 by Hearing Examiner Joseph Maronick. Attorneys: Patrick Paul for Petitioner; Carter Picotte for Respondent. Supervisory Employees [01.24, 11.22, 15.32, 36.1, 36.121] Seven positions county claims as supervisory do not meet threshold requirements of 39-31-103 (11). Job tasks are found to be routine in nature and same as those of coworkers, no exercise of independent judgment is found either.

UC No. 1-94, Montana Public Employees’ Association, Petitioner, vs. County of Yellowstone, Montana, Respondent. Recommended Order issued August 9, 1995 by Hearing Officer Joseph Maronick. Attorneys: Carter Picotte for Petitioner; Brent Brooks for Respondent. Accretion [11.22, 15.32, 16.11, 16.21, 16.22, 36.113, 36.121] Positions that union attempts to have accreted into existing bargaining unit are found not to meet appropriate unit criteria in 39-31-202. Criteria included community of interest, wages, and desires of employees. Following Board precedent, accretion is to be applied sparingly.

UC No. 5-96, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union #41, of Butte, Montana, Petitioner, vs. Montana Department of Corrections, Montana State Prison, Respondent. Recommended Order issued October 6, 1997 by Hearing Officer Michael Furlong. Representatives: John Forkin for Petitioner; Bill Bentley for Respondent. Appropriate Bargaining Unit, Accretion [11.21, 15.6, 43.12, 36.113, 36.121] Based upon community of interest and desire of employee considerations, boilermaker position is not accreted into plumbers’ bargaining unit. No historic bargaining elements exist and no community of interest is demonstrated for boilermaker to be with plumbers.

UC No. 4-97, Lewis and Clark County, Petitioner, vs. Montana Public Employees’ Association, Respondent. Recommended Order issued February 19, 1998 by Hearing Officer Stephen Wallace. Attorneys: Paul Stahl for Petitioner; Carter Picotte for Respondent. Appropriate Bargaining Unit [01.24, 09.24, 11.22, 15.513, 36.121, 36.122] County failed to show why status quo should be disturbed for administrative convenience in its efforts to remove four landfill positions from one bargaining unit and place them into another. No major changes in duties or supervisory status justifies disturbing collective bargaining rights.

UD No. 5-98, Malta Classified Education Association, MEA/NEA, Petitioner, vs. Malta Public School Districts No. 14 And A, Respondent. Recommended Order issued April 20, 1998 by Hearing Officer Joseph Maronick. Representatives: Richard Larson, Esq. for Petitioner; Arlyn Plowman for Respondent. Part Time Employees, Supervisory Employees, Community of Interest [01.24, 03.22, 11.51, 15.112, 15.12, 15.171, 16.31, 16.32, 21.2, 33.21, 33.343, 33.42] Prior to election, head custodian, head cook and Title I coordinator positions are determined to be supervisory and thus excluded from unit. Use of independent judgment and direction of subordinate staff are primary considerations. Part time custodian and deaf education instructor positions share community of interest in wages and common supervision with unit and are therefore included.